Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-19007-1997 [2006] RD-P&H 2745 (1 May 2006)

C.W.P. No. 19007 of 1997 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 19007 of 1997

Date of Decision: May 9, 2006

Satbir Singh

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:- Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for the respondents.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR. J. (ORAL)

The prayer made in the instant petition is for quashing order dated August 25, 1995 (P-1) regularising the services of respondent No.4 on the post of Water Pump Operator-II w.e.f. April 1, 1993. The aforementioned order had been issued in pursuance to the Haryana Government Gazette notification No. GSR/39/Const./Art.309/94 dated May C.W.P. No. 19007 of 1997 [2]

11, 1994. The petitioner has claimed that he along with respondent No.4 have been regularised on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar w.e.f. April 1, 1993, and therefore, on the ground that the petitioner has joined on daily wage basis/ adhoc basis in 1985 and respondent No.4 had joined as Mali- cum-Chowkidar with respondent Department on November 1, 1987, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation/ promotion to the post of Water Pump Operator, earlier to respondent No.4. Those basic facts have been controverted by respondents No.1 to 3 in their written statement.

In preliminary objection No.1, it has been categorically averred that petitioner was recruited on work charge basis as Mali-cum-Chowkidar w.e.f October 14, 1985 whereas respondent No.4 Kali Ram was appointed on daily wages as a Water Pump Operator-II w.e.f. November 1, 1987. The services of respondent No.4 were regularised in the cadre of Group D in view of the Haryana Government policy dated May 27, 1993 (R-2).

However, revised order of regularising services of the petitioner as Water Pump Operator-II w.e.f. April 1, 1993 (R-1 and R-4) were issued in super- session of the provisions of order passed by Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle-D. It has been asserted that there was no element of promotion in granting regularisation to respondent No.4 on the post of Water Pump Operator-II as he was recruited on daily wages w.e.f.

November 1, 1987. It is thus obvious that there cannot be any comparison between the petitioner who holds a grade `D' post whereas respondent No.4 is holding a grade `C' post. Both the cadres are entirely different and the prayer made by the petitioner for his promotion w.e.f. the date respondent C.W.P. No. 19007 of 1997 [3]

No.4 has been promoted is out-rightly liable to be rejected. There cannot be any equality between the unequals as the petitioner and respondent No.4, are placed.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

May 9, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.